Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[George-ananda]

One of the first things you learn as a scientist is to lay your biases and unfounded incredulity to the side. For some people, it was difficult to see how light could act as a particle or a wave, but it turned out to be true. For others it was difficult to see how gravity was the result of warped spacetime, but it turned out to be true.

If your stance is based almost entirely on what you believe is impossible or possible then the best strategy is to take a step back and start with the evidence. Don't start with "I see the world this way, or that way". Start with facts.

Right, and at the physical level alone where unbiased science is at, I do not have enough facts to make a determination. Complex life forming from just the forces accepted by science seems incredible to my mind, but I have to remain uncertain if I am looking at the world through a physical scientist's perspective.

As a student of the paranormal and the spiritual, I consider more than science in forming my personal position. Science I believe should be neutral on the question of intelligence in nature at this point in time.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As a student of the paranormal and the spiritual, I consider more than science in forming my personal position. Science I believe should be neutral on the question of intelligence in nature at this point in time.

Science is going to plow ahead and form conclusions based on empirical evidence. I have yet to see a reason as to why they shouldn't. Personal positions just aren't that compelling in science.

One of the strengths of science is that it has rules as to what counts as evidence. If anything and everything can be considered evidence, then how do you determine what is and what isn't accurate? If personal opinions carry as much weight as empirical observations, then it just turns into this useless swamp of post-modernism, at least in my experience.

 

[George-ananda]

Science is going to plow ahead and form conclusions based on empirical evidence. I have yet to see a reason as to why they shouldn't. Personal positions just aren't that compelling in science.

One of the strengths of science is that it has rules as to what counts as evidence. If anything and everything can be considered evidence, then how do you determine what is and what isn't accurate? If personal opinions carry as much weight as empirical observations, then it just turns into this useless swamp of post-modernism, at least in my experience.

I have seen enough (paranormal) to believe beyond reasonable doubt that dramatically important things lay beyond the reach of physical science.

I have also come to believe after fair consideration that certain other wisdom traditions (Vedic/Hindu) have delved into areas where physical science can not and have valid things to tell.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I have seen enough (paranormal) to believe beyond reasonable doubt that dramatically important things lay beyond the reach of physical science.

People convince themselves of things all of the time. The hard part is demonstrating an effect in a properly controlled experiment.

I have also come to believe after fair consideration that certain other wisdom traditions (Vedic/Hindu) have delved into areas where physical science can not and have valid things to tell.

If beliefs were the same as evidence then almost anything could be said to be true.

 

[George-ananda]

People convince themselves of things all of the time. The hard part is demonstrating an effect in a properly controlled experiment.

Well, the most interesting paranormal things are spontaneous and not predictable so not amenable to controlled experiments. I consider the large body of human anecdotal experiences for quantity, quality and consistency when forming my personal position. I also consider how paranormal phenomena also dovetails well with the worldview of Vedic/Hindu understandings. I find physical science jumps too much to a denial mode in regards to the paranormal where I feel science should be humbler.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Well, the most interesting paranormal things are spontaneous and not predictable so not amenable to controlled experiments.

Those are also the same types of events that are most prone to false associations.

I consider the large body of human anecdotal experiences for quantity, quality and consistency when forming my personal position. I also consider how paranormal phenomena also dovetails well with the worldview of Vedic/Hindu understandings. I find physical science jumps too much to a denial mode in regards to the paranormal where I feel science should be humbler.

What claims won't you believe in? If you believe everything that everyone says then almost everything would be considered true.

 

[George-ananda]

Those are also the same types of events that are most prone to false associations.



What claims won't you believe in? If you believe everything that everyone says then almost everything would be considered true.

The mistake is that you are assuming that if you believe some things you must believe everything you hear. This skips the steps where I talked about fair and reasoned consideration which includes a fair consideration of the quantity, quality and consistency of data and how well this all dovetails with a comprehensive worldview.

Using said methods, I have come to believe in ghosts but not Santa Claus.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The mistake is that you are assuming that if you believe some things you must believe everything you hear. This skips the steps where I talked about fair and reasoned consideration which includes a fair consideration of the quantity, quality and consistency of data and how well this all dovetails with a comprehensive worldview.

So how do you determine the quality and consistency of the data? How is it any different than science requiring evidence to be verifiable and independent?

 

[George-ananda]

So how do you determine the quality and consistency of the data? How is it any different than science requiring evidence to be verifiable and independent?

It requires judgment like a jury considering all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and rendering their verdict. I believe OJ was guilty by the way. Science may not operate that way but much in the human experience is not amenable to controlled experiments. Without human reasoning skills we would be rather low functioning creatures.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It requires judgment like a jury considering all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and rendering their verdict.

Juries accept scientifically based forensic evidence but I have never heard of a jury accepting paranormal evidence, such as a dead spirit talking through a medium.

Are you aware of juries accepting any paranormal evidence that lead to a guilty verdict?

 

[George-ananda]

Juries accept scientifically based forensic evidence but I have never heard of a jury accepting paranormal evidence, such as a dead spirit talking through a medium.

Are you aware of juries accepting any paranormal evidence that lead to a guilty verdict?

You must have misunderstood. I never suggested any of that. All I was saying is that when reaching a fair verdict/position we take all the evidence and argumentation from all sides into consideration. My point was that there are ways of reaching verdicts/positions besides controlled experiments as there is also reasoning skills that we use all the time. I am saying I use my reasoning skills to form my positions on issues normal and paranormal.

 

[shunyadragon]

But my argument is that it is pretty difficult to see complex life and the DNA molecule and all that get rolling by 'happenstance'. I am not saying it is impossible even, just I believe the chances are remote that it happened that way. I see nature as progressing with intelligence that science can not see by only seeing the physical results.
In my view it looks like it evolved because it did evolve. But I believe the whole system is also fostered by nature intelligence. I think it remote in the extreme to think that life developed and occurred by only the forces accepted by current science.

Previously you made statements that you were agnostic to science and based your belief on spiritual sources. This statement is totally in contradiction to your previous posts. Here you are making judgments concerning the science of DNA and evolution without references nor a background in the sciences of evolution.

the bold above is without merit concerning the 'current' state of the scientific knowledge, which you have no background in science to argue this position.

Your repeated use of bad terminology such as 'happenstance' makes your argument beyond ridiculous. Give up the ghosts of ancient paradigms, and at least take a few college level courses in basic science,

I am not part of the Christian based ID/creationist crowd myself. My personal leanings are more towards the Vedic (Indian/Hindu) worldview.

Regardless of your personal leanings, your argument is classical Evangelical Christian 'Intelligent Design.' I reality the Vedic (Indian/Hindu) worldview would not consider the nature of Creation in the same light as Evangelical Christian 'Intelligent Design.'

 

[George-ananda]

Previously you made statements that you were agnostic to science and based your belief on spiritual sources.

Your whole griping below about me is pointless as I would never say I was 'agnostic to science'. Go look. Probably what you saw me say was that science needs be agnostic to what it can not test.

Your post read not just wrong but also a little too rude. Carry on your thread without me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your whole griping below about me is pointless as I would never say I was 'agnostic to science'. Go look. Probably what you saw me say was that science needs be agnostic to what it can not test.

You miss used 'agnostic' and 'happenstance' in your posts continually, you expressed an indifference toward science in preference to 'spiritual sources,' and in the last post referred to the current knowledge of science as a basis for your argument, and you are fundamentally clueless as to the current knowledge of evolution, genetics, and the necessary biochemistry to remotely understand it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You must have misunderstood. I never suggested any of that.

That's precisely what you suggested:

"It requires judgment like a jury considering all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and rendering their verdict."--George-ananda

You offered juries as example of how to judge evidence. Juries don't accept paranormal evidence because it isn't evidence.

All I was saying is that when reaching a fair verdict/position we take all the evidence and argumentation from all sides into consideration.

And I am pointing out that it isn't fair to label something evidence when it isn't evidence. Beliefs aren't evidence.

 

[gnostic]

It requires judgment like a jury considering all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and rendering their verdict. I believe OJ was guilty by the way. Science may not operate that way but much in the human experience is not amenable to controlled experiments. Without human reasoning skills we would be rather low functioning creatures.

Science isn’t a courtroom.

• How is the jury going to know what is falsifiable and what isn’t falsifiable explanation, especially when they might not have scientific background to understand the hypothesis?
• How is any jury going to know what is or isn’t evidence?

But science do have mechanisms for objective determination of hypotheses, the Scientific Method and the Peer Review.

It is the peer review that sort of like the jury, but they would have the background and experiences to examine and cross-examine the hypotheses, the data, and the evidences or test results of the experiments. They can even do the experiments to independently test the hypotheses. Something a courtroom jury cannot do.

You talk of using “logic”, to determine what is or isn’t true, but you are forgetting that people are humans, and...

1. everyone don’t think the same ways,
2. they can make mistakes,
3. they can be biased,
4. and they can cheat,
5. and many more human flawed rationality.

Logic enough is not enough.

For instance, I don’t trust your logic, especially in regards to the paranormal.

You have claims a number of times there are overwhelming evidences. But much of the so-called claims of evidences are either very weak, and biased anecdotal evidences.

 

[Audie]

Science isn’t a courtroom.

• How is the jury going to know what is falsifiable and what isn’t falsifiable explanation, especially when they might not scientific background to understand the hypothesis?
• How is any jury going to know what is or isn’t evidence?

But science do have mechanisms for objective determination of hypotheses, the Scientific Method and the Peer Review.

It is the peer review that sort of like the jury, but they would have the background and experiences to examine and cross-examine the hypotheses, the data, and the evidences or test results of the experiments. They can even do the experiments to independently test the hypotheses. Something a courtroom jury cannot do.

You talk of using “logic”, to determine what is or isn’t true, but you are forgetting that people are humans, and...

1. everyone don’t think the same ways,
2. they can make mistakes,
3. they can be biased,
4. and they can cheat,
5. and many more human flawed rationality.

Logic enough is not enough.

For instance, I don’t trust your logic, especially in regards to the paranormal.

You have claims a number of times there are overwhelming evidences. But much of the so-called claims of evidences are either very weak, and biased anecdotal evidences.

One of the biggest mistakes that gets made in science is,
not repeating the original experiment on which something
is based.

Error compounding error is not unusual!

Now, in the case of our fans of the paranormal.
we are asked to accept as valid-on authority-
the validity of anecdotes about events that
cannot in any way be replicated.

Looking at the comparison to jury trial. (it is good to
see where an analogy is sound, not just where it is not.
dont you think?)

In a trial one side says all the arguments for, omitting
evidence that does not fit the narrative. The other
does the same, for his side.

A researcher needs to do both, in a paper he needs
to talk about weaknesses in his ideas and experiments.

This is due diligence in law or accounting, in science
it is scientific integrity.

Paranormal stuff. I personally have had a prophetic
dream or two!

None actually worked out One involved a dog that
was tangled up and covered with oil outside my
house, I woke up and went to rescue the dog.

Of course there was no dog there.

I doubt that sort of data gets a moment's consideration
for the paranomalists.

Why Confounding Coincidences Happen Every Day